MediacityUK: A health impact assessment

This HIA is the first phase and a rapid assessment which gives general/ broad indications of the likely positive and negative health impacts of the MediacityUK development. Measures for optimising poitive impacts and mitigating negative imacts are also recommended. Key positive health impacts are envisaged through job creation, community regeneration, the spread of health-enhancing information through the mass media, and increased opportunities for exposure to green space. Negative impacts are likely to be experience through relocation & adjustment distress for those moving into MediacityUk and several health & safety considerations.It is envisaged that the outline health impacts will be investigated more comprehensively through a longitudinal study that would provide a public health strand in monitoring and evaluating the development and contributions of MediacityUK to the health and wellbeing of the people connected with it

City Waterside East regeneration masterplan health impact assessment

This Health Impact Assessment is one of four which have been commissioned by RENEW North Staffordshire, North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership, NHS North Staffordshire, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, NHS Stoke-on-Trent and Stoke City Council. It assessed the potential health and wellbeing impacts of the City Waterside East (CWE) Masterplanning Design Options and identified opportunities for maximising the potential positive and minimising the potential negative health and wellbeing impacts of the Final Preferred Design Option. The overall conclusion was that the regeneration of City Waterside East is likely to have a significant positive health and wellbeing impact on existing and new residents. It has a few potential negative health impacts during the implementation phase the majority of which are likely to be minor to moderate in nature, short term and temporary

The systematic literature review process: a simple guide for public health and allied health students

YesA literature review is a key part of all academic research that informs researchers of the existing body of knowledge. Reviews conducted systematically are becoming more appealing to the researcher about two reasons. Firstly, they are robust, strong, comprehensive and reproducible and can appropriately serve the background review of any primary research. Secondly, they are qualified to be a stand-alone piece of academic work that contributes to the scientific body of knowledge. Although researchers and students in higher education who wish to write their dissertations are informed about the need for generating a literature review for primary research, when it comes to conducting a full systematic review, they may have some confusion and doubt on the distinction between a traditional literature review and a systematic review. This paper aims to clarify what a systematic review entails and take the readers' attention through the practical steps in conducting a systematic review. So, more of a practical step-by-step guide, rather than theoretical discussion of content, has been included. This paper would benefit early-career researchers, undergraduate students and many post-graduate students who wish to write their papers or dissertations based on a systematic review

Effectiveness and Experiences of Quality Improvement Interventions in Older Adult Care:Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) interventions are designed to resolve the recurring challenges of care for older individuals, such as working conditions for staff, roles of older individuals in their own care and their families, and relevant stakeholders. Therefore, there is a need to map the impacts of QI interventions in older adult care settings and further improve health and social care systems associated with older adults.OBJECTIVE: This review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of policy and practice QI interventions in older adult care. The secondary aim is to understand the care of older individuals and QI intervention-related experiences and perspectives of stakeholders, care providers, older individuals, and their families.METHODS: The mixed methods review will follow the standard methodology used by Joanna Briggs Institute. The published studies will be searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, and Web of Science, and the unpublished studies through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. This review included both qualitative and quantitative analyses of patients undergoing older adult care and any health and care professionals involved in the care delivery for older adults; a broad range of QI interventions, including assistive technologies, effects of training and education, improved reporting, safety programs, and medical devices; the experiences and perspectives of staff and patients; the context of older adult care setting; and a broad range of outcomes, including patient safety. The standard procedure for reporting, that is, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, will be followed.RESULTS: A result-based convergent synthesis design will be used in which both quantitative and qualitative studies will be analyzed separately, and the results of both syntheses will be then integrated during a final (convergent) synthesis. The integration will compare the findings of quantitative and qualitative evidence using tables in light of the results of both syntheses.CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review is expected to reflect on the insights into some QI interventions and their impact, outline some common challenges of quality for older adult care, and benefit both the practical usefulness of care service activities and the society at large.INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56346.</p